Venezuelan Referendum pt II

In applying the dialectical method as a means of examining the Bolivarian Revolution one is struck by the self contradictory nature of Chavez and his program.  The essence of Bolivarian policies are aimed in two directions; alleviating the social, economic, and political inequalities that exist in Venezuela and the move to a participatory democracy that is based on popular participation amongst citizens at all levels of governance.  One contradiction of the Bolivarian process that arises is the need for a strong centralized authority to implement reforms and policies that move in the direction of egalitarianism and popular participation.  This is popular empowerment from above (centralized authority) as opposed from below (mass social movements).  The contradiction lies within the need for power to be concentrated in a vertical hierarchy in order to end up with a horizontal distribution of governmental and political power.

 

Within this contradiction lies another, namely in the individual of Chavez himself.  The movement that Chavez has led in office these past ten years, what he has called the Bolivarian Process, has undeniably gained and held a popular mandate.  But the movement itself is heavily dependent on Chavez, as no other major leaders have emerged.   Without other independent centers of leadership and vision the Bolivarian project is in danger on becoming overly dependent on Chavez.  A program with the stated goals of egalitarianism and participatory democracy clearly needs to free itself of being of any one sole leader, however inspiring or intelligent he or she may be.  As has all too often been the case in the past when individuals assert their special and unique importance as leader of the ‘revolution,’ the regime holds power develops authoritarian tendencies.  Often this is accompanied by leader worship or the cult of the personality.  The case of Fidel and the Cuban Revolution, whatever one’s opinion on the matter, is a case in point.

 

These internal contradictions bring up us back to the original questions at hand in this essay, the implications of end of term limits in Venezuela.  It now becomes apparent that term limits are viewed by both supporters and opposition as a mechanism for disrupting the progression of the Bolivarian Revolution.  Importantly, both sides view the disruptive potential as centered around the contradiction inherent in Chavez currently indispensable leadership.  While the supporters of the referendum understand that this will allow Chavez to continue at the helm of the Venezuelan state and hence allow the Bolivarian process to expand and deepen, there is far too little emphasis on the potential negatives.  While the referendum affects all levels of government it is ostensibly focused on the office of the president.  With the constitutional possibility of seeking a third term in office, Chavez is ensuring the continuation of the process while at the same time undermining it by placing constraints on the emergence of new leaders and divergent opinions.  This dialectical opposition is at the heart of the referendum.

 

In the end I support the passing of the referendum and the movement towards twenty first century socialism in Venezuela.  But in supporting the Bolivarian process we must always be aware of the potential dangers that lay within it.  One simply has to look at the history of rulers throughout the ages to see that those who have power concentrated in their hands have a hard time freely giving it up, especially when this means empowering the masses.  Although the empowerment of the Venezuelan masses traditionally excluded from any such position is a major cornerstone of the Bolivarian process, the placing of a single person at the pinnacle of power for multi-decade period will engender its share of risks.  It is our task as supporters of the Bolivarian process to constantly provide a constructive critique of Chavez and his program with the interests of the people of Venezuela and the world in mind.

Reflections on the Venezuelan Referendum Pt. 1

The people of Venezuela voted yesterday in a national referendum to abolish term limits on all elected governmental offices.  First, a quick breakdown of the numbers and how the day passed.  According to Venezuela's National Electoral Council about 70% of the 16 million eligible voters took part in the vote.  The final vote in favor was about 55% to 45% against.  In contrast to a national referendum that took place in 2007 which included 69 other constitutional changes, yesterdays vote was limited to the sole issue of term limits.  International observers, as well as the opposition, have declared the vote legitimate and transparent, with the Paraguayan representative asking that Venezuela help provide technical support in installing a similar system in Paraguay.  The transparency is based on a dual system of electronic voting along side a paper vote to ensure a material record of the vote making it virtually impossible to tamper with the ballots.  On top of the dual vote is open overseeing of the vote counting by both supporters of government policy as well as members of the opposition.  In other words, the Venezuelan people have clearly spoken their minds on the issue of term limits and a clear majority are in favor of the abolition.  The real question is what implications arise from this referendum and what interests stand to gain from it.

The abolition of term limits for elected officials is in itself not inherently undemocratic.  If fact the argument for the opposite, that term limits are in their nature undemocratic, can be more easily made.  One only has to look to the many parliamentary democracies of the North to see multiple examples of this in action.  Leaving aside the various criticisms of Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution in the mainstream media around the world as having authoritative and dictatorial tendencies, the changing of the constitution to allow Chavez to run for a third term of office in 2013 and Venezuela's unique historical development certainly brings up concerns worth thinking about.  

The development of socialism through democratic means was attempted in various counties in the world to some degree throughout the twentieth century.  The case of Venezuela is really no different except for the epoch in which it is taking place, the twenty first century.  After the collapse of the USSR and world Communism, the triumph of liberal democratic capitalism was proclaimed by the imperial apologist and liberal theorists as the "end of history."  There were suppose to be no alternatives to the cure-all prescription of neoliberal economic policies, at least to those proponents of TINA and a unipolar world.  Out of this imperialist worldview came the revolt of the dispossessed peoples of the South.  In the past, social democratic states were established in Europe following the mass immiseration of the general population that was the result of WWII.  The basic reforms that were undertaken in Europe in the 1940's and 50's are, in substance, very similar to the direction that Venezuela is heading today, although they differ in form.  Private capital is being left in place by the state and it is still flourishing in 'socialist' Venezuela.  It is perhaps the form of Venezuela's path towards a social democratic state that makes the question of term limits a divisive issue not only in the country but also in the world.  This of course is due to divided opinion about the leadership of Hugo Chavez. 

Adjectives such a flamboyant, charismatic, polemical, outspoken may all justifiably be applied to Chavez in one way or another.  Certainly his opponents, and there are many of them in Venezuela and abroad, do not approve of his policies or his actions. They loath to see their final chance to rid themselves of him as president at the end of his current term in 2012 be wiped away by a popularly backed and transparent vote.  The prospect of Chavez's reelection and the continuation of the Bolivarian Revolution is at this time very likely and it is understandable that the opposition raise all manner of objections to it, some valid some not.  These are to be expected and deserved to be examined, but I believe the real examination needs to come not from the opposition but from the supporters of the Bolivarian Revolution.  

Venezuela and RCTV

So what is happening in Venezuela? A private TV station did not have their broadcasting license renewed by the Chavez government and all of a sudden democracy, freedom of speech and press are all under assault. We have heard this story before about Chavez, but this case needs to be given a closer examination before we pass judgment on it. The major media outlets in the U.S. and Europe have been doing a pitiful job in covering this event. Any semblance of objectivism was long ago disregarded as ‘irrelevant’ when it comes to discussing Chavez. Nevertheless the facts are there for all to see, it simply takes a small amount of effort to uncover them.

Lets begin with a brief overview. RCTV (Radio Caracas TV) did not have their broadcasting license renewed on the 27th of May by the government. This was not an unexpected or rash act; Chavez had made it perfectly clear he did not intend to renew the license for many months. It its place a public TV station Tvez would be set up allowing literally thousands of independent producers access and a platform in which to broadcast to the country. RCTV would not lose its cable or satellite licenses, nor would it be subject to any penalties or criminal charges.

Chavez decided to shut the station down because of its role in the 2002 coup the temporarily ousted him from power. Indeed RCTV is an opposition-aligned company but there is a difference between supporting the opposition in a democratic country and supporting a military coup to overthrow a democracy. RCTV, along with the other privately owned media companies, launched a propaganda effort backing the coup and timed to coincide with it. RCTV failed to report on the mass popular demonstrations that brought Chavez back to his elected office, failed to report that Chavez was back in power after the coup failed, and later portrayed Chavez supporters as killing peaceful anti-chavistas, which was in fact later disproved. RCTV actually went as far as supporting the military coup before it became apparent that the people of Venezuela would not stand for it.

Chavez has sited all this as the reason for not renewing the license. It is worth noting that Chavez has waited 5 years until the current license expired before acting, in complete accordance with Venezuelan law. He refrained from punishing not only RCTV but also other supporters and even members of the military that were complicit in the coup once he was swept back into power.

Can we imagine this happening in the U.S.? If a leading general overthrew the president for a few days and NBC was completely backing the military in this, could we expect that the president would just let NBC be after he regained power? The answer is no. I would expect some sort of treason trials to be initiated or perhaps something to a lesser degree. In Venezuela this did not happen although Chavez clearly had the power and mandate to do such a thing.

So where does that leave us. The Chavez government has acted accordingly in regards to Venezuelan law by removing a private company from public broadcasting frequency for actively supporting an attempt to overthrow the democratic government and establish a military dictatorship. It has left the company free to have its programming on cable and satellite channels.

There has been a lot of coverage of the protests in Caracas against the move by Chavez, but what often is not mentioned is that the pro Chavez rallies taking place at the same time are many times the size of those protesting against. Once again popular support is on the side of the government. Perhaps that is what is the most threatening to the U.S. and Europe is that there is an elected leader actually doing the bidding of the vast majority of the population in his country and not the other way around. In this context in is not surprising to see these countries denounce the move as an attack on democracy and freedom. For example lets look at Condoleezza Rice’s recent statements.

"Freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of conscience are not a thorn in the side of government... Disagreeing with your government is not unpatriotic and most certainly should not be a crime in any country, especially a democracy."


She also described the move as “undemocratic.” Never mind the fact that Venezuela has NOT charged RCTV with any crimes, and that RCTV supported the overthrow of a democratically elected government. Rice seems like she is a character straight out of 1984, Newspeak and Doublethink come out of her a bit to easily for comfort.

We only have to think of one simple example to see how hypocritical this all this, although we have many to choose from. Just imagine if tonight on the news NBC or CBS or ABC (take your pick) said we all should support Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace and help him overthrown the government. That’s it, nothing more need to be said, that station would be finished instantly. It’s as simple as that people.

Hugo Chavez en vivo

I attended my first South American political rally a few days back. Hugo Chavéz, the president of Venezuela, was here in Buenos Aires meeting with the president of Argentina, Nestor Kirchner, before holding a large rally in a football stadium in the city. The purpose of his visit was part of a larger tour of Latin America in direct opposition and protest to a similar tour the president of the U.S., G. W. Bush, was undertaking of allies in the region. I will get into the details a bit more later, first let me tell you how I found myself in the middle of such an interesting spectacle.
There I sat, sharing a beer with Fede and talking politics at some street side parrilla, the local grills found everywhere in Buenos Aires. It doesn’t take much to get Fede going on politics; he always has something to say no matter what the topic is. A local Porteño with a passion for politics, revolution, history, beer and grass, Fede has become a good friend of mine in the few months that I have been here in his city. He is incredibly involved within the local scene, an avid activist and member of the MST (Socialist Workers Movement); he is pretty much my window into the world of Argentine political movements. Eventually our conversation turned to Bush and his pending visit to Montevideo, Uruguay on Friday. As we took turns seeing who could come up with the best criticisms of Bush’s failed and failing policies around the world and domestically, Fede suddenly had a question to ask of me. “Che, what are you doing on Friday?”
“Well I am moving into my new pad in San Telmo around 5. Do you want to come check it out?”
“Oh at 5, that’s to bad, Chavéz is coming to town to hold a big rally, I was going to see it you wanted to go.”
“You mean Hugo Chavéz? What is the rally for?”
“It’s, you know, a big rally. He is going to speak and people will be there to support it.”
The vagueness of Fede’s description only left me more intrigued. I have followed the Chavéz story for some time now with a great deal of interest. His path from former military man attempting to topple the government of Venezuela in 1992, to his subsequent conversion to democratic means, to his winning of the presidency, to himself being ousted in a coup supported by the USA, to his subsequent regaining of the office is a story filled with all the drama and suspense of Hollywood movie. And that’s just one side of his story. An incredibly charismatic leader, his own brand of populism has gained him the support of a majority of the Venezuelan people and has allowed him to begin to implement radical reforms in what he calls the ‘Bolivarian Revolution’. To top it all off he has been a constant thorn in the side of the Bush government and has been a vocal critic prompting harsh responses from Washington.
I wondered what was going to happen when all those people converged on a stadium to hear the very popular president of a foreign country give a speech? I mulled it over in my head and decided that this was an opportunity not to be missed. To read about the exploits of a government that has been condemned by the Bush administration as a ‘threat to democracy’ in the U.S. is a tough proposition. Whether you like it or not most news coverage is going to be heavily jaded against Chavéz and his program, if you even want to call it coverage. The chance to see him for myself in his own environment would hopefully provide the perspective I had been looking for. I told Fede I would try to postpone my move until Saturday.

A few phone calls and a couple of days later I found myself waiting to meet Fede on the corner of Avenida Avellaneda y Segui in the Barrio of Caballito in central Buenos Aires. Fede had made it very clear beforehand that I had to meet him at 4 pm sharp so that we wouldn’t be late. Chavéz was due to speak at 7 pm so I wasn’t quite sure why we needed to be three hours early, nonetheless I made sure I was there on time. Now for all of you who don’t know the Argentine conception of punctuality, let me just make it clear that I had made a mistake in showing up at the agreed upon time. This was far too early, as I should have known, and I found myself alone in a continuously growing crowd of demonstrators, drummers, chanters and communists (as displayed by the various emblems and logos on their respective clothing). I don’t have anything about communist, its just that you often see large crowds of them in the U.S. and its only natural to be a bit apprehensive about the unknown. Not really knowing what to expect from the crowd and speaking shaky Spanish, I was feeling a bit out of place to say the least, but I soon realized that the vibe coming from the crowd was a positive one and I had nothing to fear. I simply had to bide my time and watch as the spectacle grew until Fede showed up.
After 45 minutes and a couple of cell phone calls in vain I was beginning to contemplate heading into the melee on my own, when I finally saw Fede approaching from the opposite direction.
“Che, you made it,” he said followed by the mandatory kiss on the cheek and slight embrace.
“I made it? I was getting worried that you weren’t even going to show up,” I replied. Fede simply looked at his watch and made a face as if to say he didn’t even realize he was late. I decided not to pursue the matter any further. He led me over to a group of youths that were busy unrolling banners and signs under the direction of a middle-aged man in sunglasses. I was to find out from Fede later that the man in the sunglasses, nicknamed ‘Maradona’, was part of the central committee of the political party that Fede belonged to, the MST, and that the youths were all members of the party as well. The MST itself is broken into 3 different divisions; youth, workers, and unemployed movements all coordinated under the banner of the national MST party. Fede introduced me to the party members as his comrade form the U.S. Everyone received me with a kiss on the cheek and went back to what they were doing.
I took the moment to glimpse around to see what I was getting myself into. More and more people were pouring into the street from all directions and a constant flow of buses seemed to bring bringing more people towards the stadium and me. Wait a second, towards the stadium? A few minutes ago the traffic had been going away from the stadium and this was a one-way street, what was going on here? I quickly found the cause. The street was being blocked by the police and being used as one of 3 main corridors heading to the stadium. “Police lending a helping hand in a demonstration, that certainly is a novel idea” I thought. It suddenly dawned on me that these buses that kept coming in where bringing people from the partidos, the areas of Buenos Aires that fall outside the Federal Capital limits. It is in the partidos that most of the Greater Buenos Aires residents live, about 9.5 million or more than 80% of the total. It is also where the poorest of the people live. Chavéz’s appearance was clearly a big deal for these people; he was a hero and inspiration to them and they were coming out in droves to show support.
Meanwhile the MST crew had got most of there signs set up and were beginning to stake out strategic positions in the street close to the lane carrying all the buses. Fede had taken up the central pole of the main MST banner and beckoned me to come over. Noticing that I was still trying to figure out what was happening all around he said, “Che, this is time when you ask me the questions.” So I did. I asked him about what was going to happen exactly, what his party stood for, what the other parties stood for, what he thought of Chavéz and so on. Basically I gathered that the streets would eventually fill with parked buses and people gathering into different groups. We would then commence to march to the stadium and take our places on the field in front of the stage, each group having its own little space sort of like a delegation at a convention. The MST is a communist party that follows the ideas of Trotsky and advocates revolution, a radical change of the system, not a reform from within it. Fede and the MST both supported the Bolivarian Revolution begun by Chavéz in Venezuela, but were not necessarily for Chavéz himself. “It’s important to show solidarity”, Fede explained to me. “The process that’s going on in Venezuela is a true democratic revolution and we have to support that even if we don’t always agree with what Chavéz is doing. If the revolution continues as it is going now it will soon be beyond any one persons control.” The various other groups came from the left and central spectrum of Argentine politics. Even supporters of President Kirchner’s party were there, although strongly at odds ideologically with many of the groups. It just goes to show the kind of appeal that Chavéz has here.
All of a sudden the call ‘vamos!’ ran out among the people and the procession started to march forward. It was already about 6:30 at this point and we weren’t even in sight of the stadium yet, but having just learned my lesson about Argentine punctuality I wasn’t too worried if we didn’t make inside by 7:00. I had a sneaking suspicion that although Chavéz was Venezuelan he probably wouldn’t be a stickler about being on time either. As we marched down street the people joined together in various chants such as ‘Bush facista, vos sos un terroista’ – Bush you fascist, you are the terrorist, and ‘out of Iraq, out of Palestine, and especially out of Latin America!’ ‘No to terror, no to imperialism, forward with socialism, power to the people!’ Of course the were all in Spanish, you are just going to have to trust me that it sounded much better in the original than in my translations.
The march periodically stopped and started as we waited for different groups to enter the stadium and take up their place in their designated position. The MST members seemed a little annoyed about the wait but I didn’t mind. This way I got to see all the different groups as they walked by. The atmosphere reminded me of a parade of sorts, the feelings of outrage and anger directed at imperialism were easily overcome by the feelings of jubilation and solidarity in support of giving power to the people. In this sense it was different than any sort of large rally I have ever attended. The essence of the spirit wasn’t one of protest; it was one of support and approval. I can’t remember the last time there was such a public showing of support for government actions in the U.S.
As we continued to wait to enter the stadium Fede explained to me why seemingly everyone was entering before us. “We are the trouble makers for the government,” he said with a smile, “We don’t agree with them and we stick to our principles, for that they disapprove of us. Che, just watch, we will go in last and get the worst spot, of this I am sure.”
Sure enough the MST contingent was the last group to enter the stadium and our spot was at the very back of the field. It was going to be impossible to see Chavéz through the sea of people and banners in between the stage and us. If the music blasting through the speakers was any indication though, we were certainly going to be able to hear him. As I looked around the stadium I thought that this could easily be a rock concert instead of a political rally. The stands were filled with people standing, clapping, dancing and singing. Huge banners in front of the sections indicated where the people had come from and I realized that this was more that just Buenos Aires affair. Certain sections had come from hours away and they were determined to enjoy themselves. Vendors walked through the crowd selling roasted peanuts, coke, and beer. People sat on the ground in small circles and brought out their mate gourds and thermoses of hot water. “Hey man, we should come to more of these, this is kinda fun,” I said to Fede.
“Chavéz is a showman,” he said, “that’s part of the reason people come out to see him.”
The crowd reached a fevered pitch when the loudspeakers began to play the Argentine national anthem. Behind me in the stands people were shooting off fireworks and had flares going and were literally bouncing up and down in unison. ‘This isn’t a rock concert,’ I thought, ‘this is a goddamn football match, these people are going nuts.’ (That’s soccer for all you back in U.S. by the way.) The Venezuelan national anthem came next, followed by a role call of all the political groups in attendance. The MST got snubbed by the announcer and was left out of the role call. Some of the members around me took it as badge of pride. “They don’t want to recognize us, but they can’t ignore us forever,” Fede confidently explained. “We are here and nobody can deny us that.”
Finally all the festivities came to an end and just like at a boxing match a speaker came on stage to introduce the main event for the evening, President Hugo Chavéz. The crowd erupted once again as Chavéz made his appearance and greeted the crowd. “Hola y buenos noches mi hermanos y hermanas,” he roared and was greeted back by the enthusiastic crowd. He proceeded to speak about the similarities and connections of the Argentine and Venezuelan people, emphasizing his close relationship with President Kirchner. This went on for a good 15 minutes, and to tell you the truth I really wasn’t that impressed. Where was the fiery orator that had captured the admiration and hatred of millions around the globe? I mean was this really the same man that hosts his own 6 hour-long TV show in Venezuela every single week? I was feeling a bit disappointed in the whole affair when Chavéz switched the topic from Latin American brotherhood and cooperation to imperialism and Bush. Building in a slow crescendo Chavéz worked himself and the crowd into a wild frenzy. Now I don’t profess to understand all or even most of what he said, but just by listening to the man speak I could feel the immense attraction that his voice held. This was clearly a man born for stage and public arena.
He was careful not to but at blame the American people, but rather made a quite clear distinction that the ones to blame were in the government, namely Bush and his followers. Chavéz denounced the policies of war and imperialism that Bush favors, the long standing history of U.S. imperialist involvement in Latin American affairs, and the failed social policies of the U.S. There were more than a few jokes shared at Bush’s expense. Luckily I had Fede close by to translate for me. One of the better ones was saying how Bush must have the lowest IQ of any president ever. Chavéz also brought up that Bush had recently compared George Washington to Simon Bolivar, the liberator of South America from Spanish rule. I think Bush was somehow trying to equate a common history and ideal in U.S. and Latin American history, one that is and has always been at the heart of U.S. actions in the region. Chavéz took particular offence to this seeing as Bolivar is a personal hero of his. After ridiculing Bush about not following the ideals of Washington, let alone Bolivar, he uttered his one and only phrase in English during the whole night. “Yankee, go home!” The people loved it and I have to say so did I.
The entire speech lasted a good hour and a half, well into the darkness of a late summer evening in Buenos Aires. I left the stadium with a new understanding about Chavéz, Argentina, and the Americas in general. The Bush administration has repeatedly criticized Chavéz, calling him a threat to democracy and stability in the region, a ‘negative force’. Well that certainly wasn’t the man I saw. If calling for greater social justice and inviting the masses of poverty stricken people to have a say in how they are governed is a ‘negative force’ it only makes me wonder what is considered positive. The solidarity I saw on that night between people from all over the social spectrum, young and old, poor and wealthy, white and native, city and rural, foreign and local, was unprecedented in my experience. Never have I seen so many people come together to support something so positively. It begs the question, whose stability is Chavéz a threat to? Is it that of the peoples of the Americas or is that of the narrow band of leaders in Washington? You can decide for yourselves, but I am confident that I now know the answer.